Transcript Behaviour & Attitudes Teachers` Workload Survey

Teachers’
Workload
Survey
Prepared for
TUI
Prepared by Luke Reaper and Ian McShane
March 2010
J.9871
IMAGE HERE INTO GREY AREA.
Introduction
2
Research Background
1) A qualitative phase of twelve in-depth interviews structured as follows:
 Three Teaching Deputy Principals and nine teachers
 Mix of subjects were taught (i.e. maths, music, career guidance, science,
French, metal work, woodwork, geography, Irish, Home Economics)
 Split between:
1)
10 interviews with VEC and C&C schools and
2)
2 interviews in Further Education/3rd Level Colleges
 Mix of genders of respondents
 Mix of urban vs rural schools

The objective of this phase was to inform the quantitative findings. TUI teachers
were chosen randomly by Behaviour & Attitudes from a broader listing compiled by
TUI.
3
Research Background
2) A quantitative survey of 442 second and third level teachers conducted via selfcompletion methodology. The following sampling frame was utilised.
A) Firstly the full list of Post Primary schools were tagged; for VEC vs C&C and for
specific programmes; LCA, LCVP, TY, JCSP and special needs. The PLC schools and
Private Secondary schools were deleted from the sampling frame. The end result
was our school sample frame. In addition, also included in the overall sampling
frame was the full list of Institutes of Further Education and Third Level Institutes.
B) This sample frame was first stratified according to the proportion of VEC, C&C
schools and Institutions of Further Education and Third Level Institutes within four
regions: Dublin, Rest of Leinster, Munster and Conn/Ulster. Next, specific schools in
proportion to these universes were selected.
Schools with special needs and minority ethnic students were included within the
sampling frame. Schools with less than 10 TUI members were excluded from the
sampling frame.
4
Research Background
C) Every TUI member within a selected institution was given the opportunity to
complete the survey. The following numbers of Educational Institutions were
selected for the mail out of the questionnaire pack:
 61 VEC schools
 57 C&C Schools
 10 Further Educational Institutes
 10 Third Level Institutes

A letter from the TUI, explaining the purpose of the research, was mailed to each
principal of a selected school/college.

In addition, a letter explaining the research purpose, prepaid reply envelope and
questionnaire were included in each pack mailed to teachers.
5
Research Background

442 completed TUI teacher interviews were achieved, split across the following
school types:
 VEC
161
 C&C
128
 Further Education
78
 Third Level
68
 Not classified

7
The results were weighted by TUI membership of school/college type within region
and position level.
6
Findings
7
Section One:
Current Context
8
How VEC & C&C teacher workload has changed in the
past 10 years – Top 10 spontaneous comments
School/College
(Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291)
%
Increased paperwork/admin
53
Increasing discipline problems
35
Mixed ability classes
29
Increased planning
27
More preparation for classes
24
Increased curriculum changes
23
Meetings in general
22
Inspections
20
Increased demands from parents
Homework/ corrections / marking
18
9
C&C
VEC
128
161
%
%
52
53
46
33
29
29
24
28
26
23
28
22
27
21
21
20
17
18
8
9
*Answers less than 9% not charted, but are contained within the table set
9
How VEC & C&C teacher workload has changed in the
past 10 years – Top 10 spontaneous comments
(Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291)
Total
Region
DEIS Status
2nd Level
Assessment
Dublin*
Outside
Dublin
Yes
No
Yes
No
291
58
228
159
115
157
119
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Increased paperwork – more record keeping / form filling /more reports / CAO
applications / more administrative work
53
52
53
55
48
51
56
Increasing discipline problems – more time spent dealing with student behavioural
issues / documenting disciplinary matters and meetings re discipline
35
42
34
40
27
36
33
Mixed ability classes – more demands on teachers due to integration of special needs
pupils and minorities (non-nationals) into mainstream classes / preparing modified
classes
29
52
23
30
28
34
23
Increased planning – more planning required for classes / school development
planning / teachers more involved in planning school policy
27
30
27
27
31
28
26
More preparation for classes – increased project / practical work / more
photocopying / need to set up and tidy up after practical work / increased pressure
to complete projects within time-frame.
24
19
25
21
29
32
14
Increased curriculum changes / introduction of new subjects / increased use of
technology & internet use / new methodologies / need to prepare for new
programmes.
23
25
22
22
24
26
17
Meetings in general / meetings outside school hours / more staff meetings /
lunchtime meetings / parent teacher meetings outside school hours
22
16
24
17
30
27
16
Inspections – more work & pressure involved in preparing for subject inspections,
whole school evaluations / introduction of 2nd assessment component in many
subjects.
20
15
21
17
24
18
23
Increased demands from parents – phone calls, informal meetings / lack of cooperation from parents over discipline or homework issues.
18
11
19
14
24
20
12
9
7
9
9
10
12
5
Base (WTD)
Homework/ corrections / marking
* Small base size
10
Section Two:
Teacher Workload
11
Average Workload Per Week
(Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers filling in the diary: 239)
School/College
19.2
Timetable hours
TOTAL OUTSIDE TIMETABLE
23.9
Preparing for classes
5.4
C&C
VEC
104
133
18.4
19.4
21.9
24.4
4.5
5.6
Carrying out administrative duties
4.0
3.9
4.0
Correcting students work
4.4
3.9
4.5
Meeting students individually
1.7
2.0
1.7
Planning with colleagues
1.4
1.2
1.4
Organising extra curricular activities
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.2
Supporting students with special needs
1.2
Attending staff meetings
0.7
0.6
0.8
Meeting with parents
0.7
0.7
0.6
Participation subject evaluation work
1.0
0.5
1.1
Supporting students of minority groups
0.5
0.4
0.6
1.8
1.4
Other
1.5
NB: Included a mix of positions
On average teachers are spending 24 hours working per week outside of timetabled teaching hours.
On average 19 hours of teaching time was recorded.
12
Extra curricular activities involved in
(Base: VEC/C+C Teachers: 291)
Age of teacher
Games
u35
35-44
45-54
55+
Total
63*
56*
92
74*
%
%
%
%
%
35
48
45
24
28
11
15
10
7
9
14
7
6
5
2
10
6
11
Musicals
Drama
9
6
School Trips
Debating
5
7
5
5
3
Fundraising
Outings/Quiz
5
5
6
5
3
32
28
29
15
29
29
40
52
Others
No involvement
26
38
* Note: Small base
Q.3
If you are involved in extra curricular activities please indicate which, if any, of the following you are
involved in?
13
Issues of most concern to teachers in terms of managing
day-to-day workloads (spontaneous comments)
(Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291)
School/College
C&C
VEC
%
53
Workload
37
Discipline
27
Administration
15
Homework/marking
14
Lack of resources
12
Practical work/projects
Mixed ability classes
Student Apathy
Spontaneous
concern increases
with age of teacher
11
9
128
161
%
%
57
53
30
39
18
29
16
15
16
13
12
12
12
11
10
9
*Answers less than 9% not charted, but are contained within the table set
14
Issues of most concern to teachers in terms of managing
day-to-day workloads (spontaneous comments)
(Base: All VEC/C+C Teachers: 291)
Total
Region
Q33 DEIS
Status
Q8 2nd Level
Assessment
Dublin*
Outside
Dublin
Yes
No
Yes
No
291
58
228
159
115
157
119
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Workload – inability to complete all tasks within school day / increased workload
and demands / no free time, short lunch breaks / too many meetings / no time for
class preparation need to prioritise / bringing work home – effect on home & social
life / increased pressure to meet deadlines and assessments / pressure to ensure
assignments & syllabus completed on time.
53
55
53
53
53
58
45
Discipline – dealing with disruptive, aggressive students / lack of effective methods
of dealing with indiscipline / stress in dealing with disruptive pupils
37
40
36
39
34
36
40
Too much time spent of administration – too much paperwork, reports, form
filling, photocopying, recording incidents, writing notes to parents / lack of
secretarial backup
27
54
20
32
13
31
20
Homework/marking – trying to complete homework, corrections within timeframe /
correcting exam papers promptly.
15
10
17
14
17
18
12
Lack of resources – outdated, faulty equipment, lack of computers, poor
broadband & it service, unclean environment/ cutbacks in teaching hours,
uncertainty re teacher absences & substitutions / increasing supervision demands /
not enough SNAs.
14
25
11
11
19
15
12
Practical work / projects / orals – no time for class preparation or clean up /
inability to give individual attention to each student /pressure to ensure projects
completed on time.
12
4
15
12
13
17
6
Mixed ability classes – dealing with special needs, non-nationals, travellers / impact
on more able students / large numbers of special needs students in class
11
28
7
14
7
10
12
9
10
9
11
6
6
12
Base (WTD)
Difficulty of dealing with apathy / lack of motivation in students
* Small base size
15
Opinion of workload in the last 5 years
(Base: VEC/C&C Teachers: 291)
In your opinion has your workload in the following areas …
Decreased Remained
the same
Increased
N/A
Don’t
know
Carrying out administrative duties %
0 9
87
0
3
Participating in school development planning %
1 10
87
0
3
Addressing a wider range of student abilities in a class %
1 11
85
0
3
Using information technology to assist teaching %
0 12
82
4
2
Working outside of timetabled hours %
2 13
81
0
4
Dealing with class discipline/conflict %
2 15
81
0
2
Participating in subject inspection %
1 15
78
0
5
Supporting/working with special needs assistants %
2 12
76
6
4
15
75
0
9
72
4
4
69
4
4
Participating in whole school evaluation %
Supporting special needs students %
Dealing with other student behavioural issues (e.g. %1
pregnancies, drugs/crime, bullying)
1
1
19
28
16
Opinion of workload in the last 5 years
(Base: VEC/C&C Teachers: 291)
In your opinion has your workload in the following areas …
Decreased Remained
Increased
N/A
Don’t
know
63
0
1
63
12
9
the same
Meeting students individually % 5
33
Supporting minority students a) those from migrant
%
background
31
3
Preparing for classes %
2
33
62
0
3
Dealing with parental demands %
1
14
62
0
4
55
15
8
55
0
5
53
0
5
52
17
5
50
19
13
22
7
13
25
Conducting project work/field work a) associated with
%
state examinations
Dealing with growing student numbers in class %
38
7
Correcting student work % 5
15
Meeting /supporting parents of special needs students %
2
Supporting minority students b) Travellers %
Meeting/supporting parents of minority students %
Conducting project work/field work b) other than that
%
associated with state examinations
20
2
33
3
30
3
2
28
25
37
32
17
Top Teacher Duties in terms of workload
(Base: VEC/C+C Teachers filling in the question :264)
Any
mention in
top ten
Working outside of timetabled hours %
Mentioned
1st
%
22
83
Dealing with class discipline/conflict %
82
Preparing for classes %
73
10
Carrying out administrative duties %
72
8
Addressing a wider range of student abilities in a
class %
69
Correcting student work %
Supporting special needs students %
Participating in school development planning %
Meeting students individually %
52
47
Dealing with other student behavioural issues
(e.g. pregnancies, drugs/crime, bullying) %
47
Conducting project work/field work a) associated %
with state examinations
40
Using information technology to %
assist teaching
40
9
25
8
42
18
40
49
7
40
46
46
3 5 2
37
8
2 6 1
9
43
3 32
4 4
17
9
2 6 3
2
40
6
8
Other ranking (4-10)
11
12
10
8
3rd
7
13
5
63
58
2nd
8
27
28
31
37
42
48
53
29
7
Not rated
in top 10
25
30
% ranked on any mention in top 10 duties
53
60
60
18
Top Teacher Duties in terms of workload
(Base: VEC/C+C Teachers filling in the question : 264)
Any
mention
in top ten
Participating in subject inspection %
1st 2nd
3rd
Others
%
40
1 2
3
Participating in whole school evaluation %
39
11
5
Dealing with parental demands %
29
0 3
Dealing with growing student numbers in
%
class
25
1 3
35
31
5
27
Supporting minority students a) those from %
migrant background
23
Supporting minority students b) Travellers %
21
11 2
16
Supporting/working with special needs
assistants %
20
02 2
16
Meeting/supporting parents of minority
students %
12
Conducting project work/field work b) other %
than that associated with state examinations
11
Meeting /supporting parents of special needs %
students
11
0
11
0 0
1
60
61
71
22
4
Not rated
in top 10
20
12
65
77
79
80
88
0
01
10
89
02
0
9
89
% ranked on any mention in top 10 duties
19
Prompted assessment of specific workload factors : Summary
Extend workloads has increased due to following elements
(Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291)
*Demands of
second
assessment
components
Working with
special needs
students
%
%
59
Agree strongly
Neither
Disagree slightly
Disagree strongly
Don’t know
Presence of
minority students
in classes
%
%
59
58
24
25
9
8
3
81
27
Agree slightly
Using technology to
assist teaching
increases workload
preparation time
12
5
01 2
7
01
5
4
2
3
* Note: Based on all involved in second assessment components
4
1
20
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics

Across-the-board agreement that teachers’ workload has increased dramatically over
the last ten years or so.

A key dichotomy in this regard is the split between C&C and VEC teachers on the one
hand, and Further Education and Third Level on the other.
FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL

A whole range of factors, many of them by definition interrelated, are perceived to
have combined to render these teachers’ workloads significantly more onerous in
recent years.

In no particular order, these factors included:

A massive increase in the proportion of Second Level/Secondary School students
progressing to higher education, from circa 15% (‘The Best and Brightest’) around
ten years ago to 60% + now.
This shift to ‘Universal Third Level’ education, while welcome, has had a number of
knock-on effects.
21
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL
 Firstly, an increase in the number of pupils with a range of learning skills and
abilities. On the basis that teachers of higher level students are themselves
responsible for assessing their own students (unlike Second or Secondary level
teachers), the increase in the number of mixed ability students has increased
the amount of time spent assessing the students’ work per se.
 As a result, there has also been an increase in the amount of time spent by
teachers’ on the continuous assessment of students throughout the academic
year.
 Teachers can also talk of the need to spend time and energy rendering course
content more engaging and accessible for lower ability students.
 Secondly, the increase in pupil numbers has inevitably lead to an increase in
class sizes, with added pressures on a teacher’s time if he/she is to grant each
student the amount of attention he/she requires.
 It was mentioned within this context that the lifting of class size restrictions in
1998 has lead to a situation whereby class sizes can range from as low as five
students, to 200+.
22
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL

Migration to new technologies, software systems etc. While it is acknowledged that
new software packages and computer systems are vital in today’s fast-moving
technological environment, there is a strong sense in which training in the use of
such systems is inadequate, placing further pressure on teachers to find the time to
familiarise themselves with their modus operandi.

While training is generally arranged by the organisation, it may be announced at
quite short notice, and even then at a time of the day or week which may not
necessarily suit the teacher in question.

There was also criticism of the tendency for the Institute’s authorities to impose the
introduction of new technologies (one example cited being an operational system
switched from a Web CT to a Blackboard system) with little or no consultation. The
suggestion being that a consultative approach to the introduction of new systems
would produce a more streamlined (and time-efficient!) implementation process.
23
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL

On a related issue, some pointed out that the introduction of new systems had in
itself increased the amount of work they were required to do (e.g. entering
information/data on an ongoing basis) – the type of administrative tasks secretarial
staff might traditionally have been expected to fulfil.

One respondent spoke of the impact on his general workload of the (relatively
recent) introduction of new modes of course delivery. Specifically, the division of the
academic year into two Semesters, and the compartmentalisation of course work
into a smaller number of distinct modules was reported to have taken quite an
amount of time to administer.

The amount of time spent by teachers developing new courses is also perceived to
have increased exponentially in recent years.
For example, one of the third level teachers explained how, in the past, a course was
sent to the NCEA for approval. Now, the Institute must design its own course content
(whether a development of an existing course or the introduction of an entirely new
one), which in turn needs to be externally validated. This process is reported to
generate a considerable amount of administrative work.
24
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
FURTHER EDUCATION/THIRD LEVEL

An increase in the number of Committees/Sub-Committees upon which teachers
often feel obliged to serve was also reported. While the work involved in
contributing to an individual committee (e.g. computer usage policy) may not in
itself be overly-onerous, combined with a range of other tasks and factors (as
discussed), the working week of the average Further Education/Third Level teacher
can be closer to 40 than 16 hours!

In addition to the whole range of workload related factors which can affect all such
teachers (albeit to varying degrees), there were quite a few examples of teachers
who had assumed additional responsibilities, the fulfilment of which often
necessitated a considerable number of working hours, which it is felt are by no
means appreciated by management or even peers.

Examples of such additional responsibilities (for which there is no additional
remuneration) included class tutoring (dealing with students’ health issues; sorting
out problems with grants etc), special duties assisting principals/assistant principals
etc.
25
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
C&C / VEC

In general, C&C and VEC teachers can speak of their having to devote at least as
many hours to their job outside the class each week as they do inside it. They can
however make the point that many of the additional hours are beneficial to the
students and indeed to themselves from a job satisfaction perspective.

Nevertheless, some did assume that reduced salaries are probably ‘on the way’ given
the current economic climate, and sounded a note of caution with regard to
teachers’ tolerance-levels in the face of increasing working hours alongside reducing
remuneration!

As with the Higher Level teacher respondents, a whole range of factors are seen to
have emerged over the last ten years, the net effect of which has been the increase
the average teachers’ workload considerably.
26
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
C&C / VEC

In no particular order these include:
 Discipline. Mentioned spontaneously by all such respondents, and clearly a
significant drain on teachers’ resources.
 Perceived to manifest itself in a whole range of ways (abusive behaviour to
teachers/pupils; foul language; lack of homework; lack of class materials…)
 Attributed to a whole range of societal factors, from lack of parental interest to
abuse of alcohol by students.
 Resulting for some teachers in an increase in the amount of extra-curricular
hours needed to coach more willing students.
 Along with the generation of a considerable amount of paperwork for the
teacher in relation to specific disciplinary cases (e.g. detailed recording of
suspension/expulsion process). Also liaison in extreme cases with parents and/or
Gardai.
27
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
C&C / VEC

Teachers were less vociferous in their views as to how this fundamental problem with
discipline might be addressed, although there was quite an amount of talk of the
possible establishment of off-site centres for unruly students where they could be
adequately supervised.

With another potential solution (deemed implausible due to space/staff resource)
the establishment of a separate supervised room within the school itself.

Many of the teachers were however critical of Section 29 of the Education Act, which
is seen to be heavily biased towards the pupil’s rights, and away from those of the
teacher, and indeed the school. Specifically, the fact that a student’s record is
“wiped clean” every September is perceived by some to give the student Carte
Blanche to behave however he/she likes.
28
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
C&C / VEC

One teacher did however praise Section 23 of the Act, whereby it is acknowledged
that each student as well as his/her co-students have the right to an education.
The amount of project work required (particularly for the Leaving Certificate Applied
Programme) is also identified as considerable.
With the above course requiring the student to produce eight tasks over the two year
course period.
This is one area where the teacher feels obliged to put the extra hours in, as a good
project can often help push the weaker students “over the line” in terms of passing
the exam.

A significant increase in the amount of administrative work required is also reported,
not least due to the School Evaluation/Inspection programme. Specifically, the need
to write down/record absolutely all elements of a course programme is deemed to
be very labour-intensive, although the benefits of such practices to the overall
educational system are generally appreciated. The timing of these inspections
around exam periods was questioned.
29
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
C&C / VEC

Many teachers acknowledged that there was often a rush to complete documentation
when a Whole school/subject inspection was announced. However, some claimed that
even if the relevant documents were compiled throughout the year, there still was an
amount of work involved to tidy and finalised them. Many teachers felt that while
inspections always occurred in the past, these were particularly traumatic.

Generally teachers felt there was a lack of actual time to plan with their colleagues –
only ‘emergency’ planning.

There was a general feeling prevalent amongst teachers that there now needed to be a
policy for ‘everything’ (e.g. drug abuse, bullying, attendance, health & safety, pastoral
care, equality, etc.), which in workload terms was viewed as overwhelming.

Many teachers commented that they received little training on how to actually write
these policy documents. On top of the latter, the administration time devoted to typing
these documents was also felt to be underestimated. One teacher was extremely
concerned over new emissions policies, which they felt required certain expertise
outside the remit of a teacher. This person was concerned that parents could launch a
challenge. The latter resulted in fear and uncertainty.
30
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
C&C / VEC

Student ability levels were also cited as a factor which has placed a greater demand
on teachers’ workloads. Some feel pupils’ ability levels are simply lower nowadays
compared to even ten years ago, due to a range of societal dynamics (e.g. dwindling
parent interest in the educational standards of their children; increased level of
student alcohol consumption, etc).
Others merely point to the practice of comprising mixed ability classes nowadays,
with the need for extra time to be spend on the weaker students, to the detriment
of the stronger.

Again, the amount of time required to familiarise oneself with I.T. systems, and
indeed to actually utilise them on a day-to-day basis, was to C&C/VEC teachers a
drain on resource.
In some cases, the PC’s used in the classrooms were described as old and slow, eating
up valuable class time in the process.
31
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
C&C / VEC
One teacher complained that neither students nor himself had explored new uses for
computers in recent years, and complained that computer classroom sessions were
difficult to supervise and, as a result, often haphazard affairs. This teacher’s point
being that he could be spending this valuable time on more fruitful tasks with the
students.

Apart from project work, the LCA programme is also seen to generate a significant
amount of after-hours work for the teacher, across a range of tasks (e.g. helping
students arrange work experience, organising visitors/speakers to address the
classes), with the teacher often relying on friends and acquaintances to ultimately
deliver in this regard!

Also the JCP was felt to entail an amount of extra work on top of the ordinary
curriculum, with the need to continuously monitor students and an amount of form
filling mentioned. In addition the JCSP was also mentioned in terms of workload –
having to organise events, like book clubs, etc. Do note that the latter was viewed as
a good programme.

The Leaving Certificate Applied also entailed significant workloads. For example,
trips needed to be organised (e.g. to prisons, etc) by the teacher, some of which
might be on Saturday mornings.
32
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
C&C / VEC

The new syllabuses were also felt to be adding to teacher workload. Example of the
latter cited here included Leaving Certificate Journal of assignments (a backlash on
the part of students was mentioned here – and that it took all of 5th Year to obtain it
from students). Subjects have been added to the Junior certificate (e.g. CSPE, PHE,
religion, etc). Also the spread of secondary components to an increased range of
students was felt to have increased teachers workload (e.g. science, home
economics, etc).

The expansion of the curriculum has in turn had a knock on effect on the amount of
marking required. The Home Economics course was in particular singled out.

Some of the teachers also served on one or more school committees and, while
generally happy to “do their bit” for the school, nevertheless pointed out that all
extra hours devoted to their job add up over the course of an average month, year,
etc.
33
Teachers’ Workload: Key Dynamics
C&C / VEC

Examples of such committees included:
 School Development Plan
 School Policies Committee
 Health and Safety Committee

Pupil/staff ratios were mentioned by a handful of these teachers, more so as a likely
future problem (i.e. from September 2009), whereby increased class sizes will
inevitably result in some of the weaker students requiring after-hours support in
order to “catch up”.

Incidentally, the stipulation of a minimum twenty students per class will, in the
opinion of some of these respondents, place the viability of some “minority” subjects
(e.g. Music) under pressure, with an increased likelihood of teacher job losses.
34
Section Three:
Second Assessment
Component
35
Extent workload has increased due to demands of second
assessment components
Base: All involved in second assessment components: 157
TOTAL
Disagree strongly Not stated
Disagree slightly 2% 1%
0%
Neither
5%
12%
Agree slightly
81%
Agree strongly
36
Reaction to second assessment components
Base: All involved in second assessment: 157
Agree
strongly
Second assessment components
have spread to a greater
number of subjects in the past
ten years
Agree
slightly
Disagree Disagree
slightly strongly
77
Teachers often try to bring
students up in grades by
revisiting their project work
11
53
It is unfair to ask teachers to
sign off on whether project
work is a student's own work or
not
47
17
43
28
There is a lack of set standards
for project work and practical
work
42
32
Some students get help at home
which makes the quality of
project work unrealistic
42
28
20
17
There is insufficient guidelines
for teachers on how to manage
second assessment components
There is a lack of age
appropriate standards for
project work and practical work
Neither
18
16
25
29
24
3 1 (1)
4.62
3
6
(1)
4.07
(1)
3.84
2 (2)
4.00
(1)
3.96
(1)
3.84
(1)
3.64
10
13
11
8
5
6
11
12
Mean
score
6
8
12
Not
stated
5
37
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project
Work: Qualitative Phase

Overall the expansion of the amount of secondary assessment/project work and its
spread across different subjects has been impacting on teacher workloads in recent
years. The following examples were cited as to how the curriculum has changed in
this area:
 New Home Economic syllabuses introduced 1994 – went from 1 to 3 components
(practice, project and theory paper).
 Leaving Cert Applied subsequently also had extra tasks. The Leaving Cert now
also has a Journal of assignments
“It takes the fifth year to get it out of the students. They hate it. A high
number drop Leaving Cert Home Economics because of it.”
38
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project
Work: Qualitative Phase

A number of second assessments/project work areas were cited as impacting on
teacher workloads:
 The lack of timetabling of tasks was often cited as an issue. These tasks
included marking, helping students, reviewing work, purchasing material, etc.
 The nature of completing the tasks in themselves also was perceived to have
increased in workload terms:
“The marking itself could take an hour at home”
 Motivating students partaking in project work in itself was deemed to be quite
frustrating and time consuming. The nature of the student often contributed to
the latter. Teachers mentioned having to constantly chase students to complete
project elements. The increasingly poor attention span of children is also
impacting, making project work difficult.
“They have no concept of deadlines”
“Diary on work experience, has to be marked and given back, but the
correction would not be done – so you have to take it home again to mark it”.
39
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project
Work: Qualitative Phase

The nature of project work often involves teachers re-marking and reviewing student
work to help them improve their grades. Teachers feel obliged to do this work.

The purchasing of materials and fixing of equipment is often done or co-ordinated by
teachers in their spare time.
“You have to make sure the tools are fixed”
“I am getting new cookers in so have to source the supplier”

General administration on project work. This centres on:
 Cleaning up after students/exam practicals, etc.
 Packing up materials

The amount of marking involved was perceived to have increased (e.g. Home
Economics).
40
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project
Work: Qualitative Phase

Children doing surveys (e.g. CSP Projects), want to conduct them during school time.
The latter was felt to interrupt classes.
“So not only teaching, but have a lot of interruptions”

Preparing time in advance of practical classes also cited as being up to one hour.

Some subjects such as ‘construction’ had examples cited whereby parents would help
children on their woodwork. Most teachers felt it would not be signed off, but often
can be hard to prove, placing added pressure on teachers.

Special needs assistants often not trained in practical subjects (eg metal work) hence
teachers still under immense pressures.

The need for planning around practical subjects such as Home Economics and applied
courses is more ‘emergency planning’ rather than scheduled.

While the practical element of project work is often achieved, problems can occur in
the report writing. Often teachers mentioned that they had no time to supervise or
correct sufficiently (and the latter was not timetabled).
 The latter writing issue is exacerbated amongst special needs students
(especially those not assessed).
41
Comments on Secondary Assessment/Project
Work: Qualitative Phase

The advantages of Project Work cited included:
 Helps weaker students with the focus on the practical element
 As it is spaced over the year for final assessment, it should be fairer.
 The spread of secondary work to a range of subjects has made its inclusion more
mainstream, albeit from a low base.

Some suggested improvements in the area included:
 Inclusion of planning, marking and preparation into timetabled hours. (Most
hours spent here)
 More defined set standards for project work, including feedback to students and
resultant corrections.
 Recognition of the amount of work involved outside of timetabled hours
 Better range of books or practical subjects for special needs children
 Trained special needs assistants in practical subject areas.
42
Section Four:
Special Needs
43
Incidence of Teaching a Special Needs Class
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
%
All of the time
Some of the time
9
School/College
C&C
8
VEC
9
DEIS Status
Yes
12
1-450
4502000
4
5
14
59
58
63
No
School Size
58
65
65
69
Do not teach one
27
37
36
34
26
23
17
44
No.s of special needs students (formally assessed) taught
(across all classes)
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
None
School/College
%
C&C
17
14
VEC
17
Region
DEIS Status
*Dublin Outside
Yes
10
18
17
No
14
20
1–4
17
20
21
35
19
24
13
5–8
17
17
15
18
18
20
17
9 – 15
23
28
26
27
16
30
38
16+
Mean
20
18
10.98
10.87
* Note small base size
25
21
11.00
16
17.86
9.20
13
12.43
8.59
45
Special needs student averages
Base: All VEC & C&C Teachers: 291
Q.10a
How many students (across all classes) that
have undergone formal assessment and as a
consequence have been allocated additional
support
Q.10b
Excluding special needs classes, what is the
highest number of the above students that you
teach in a single class?
=
Q.10c
How many other students that you teach
(across all classes ) do you think have special
needs?
=
=
Average : 10.98
Average : 5.60
Average : 9.51
46
Extent working with special needs students has
increased teacher workload
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
School/College
C&C
%
%
Agree strongly
53
59
VEC
%
60
Region
*Dublin
%
Outside
%
56
68
DEIS Status
Yes
%
No
%
2nd Level Assess
Yes
%
48
51
62
66
26
Agree slightly
34
29
27
28
24
36
22
Neither
Disagree slightly
Disagree strongly
Not stated
Mean
24
12
7
1 0
5
4.50
4
1
5
4.33
* Note small base size
6
10
5
4.54
No
%
8
6
1 0
4
2 0
6
8
1 0
5
4.63
4.47
4.53
10
5
10
6
5
1
0
4
4.44
4.62
3 0
5
4.34
47
Extent working with special needs students has
increased teacher workload
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
%
Any
Taught
%
Programmes Teach
L.Cert
app
%
L.Cert
Junior Trans
V
%
%
%
Teach Spec Needs
None
%
Any
%
None
%
School Size
1-450
%
4502000
%
35
Agree strongly
52
59
62
47
51
59
68
64
67
71
35
26
Agree slightly
27
28
28
23
Neither
Disagree slightly
Disagree strongly
Not stated
Mean
31
34
7
1 0
5
4.50
21
7
0 0
7
10
2
7
10 0
5
4.53
4.58
4.53
10
8
2
9
7
1 1
0
1
25
4.64 4.40 4.38
6
100
4.58
27
10
18
16
2 0
3
20
4.26
5
1 1
2
20
7
4.55 4.40
48
Extent of opinion on special needs
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
Agree
strongly
Agree
slightly
I need more preparation time to
effectively plan and work with
special needs students
63
Additional equipment and
materials are required in this
area
The concept of integration in
this area is the correct
approach, but the current
resources are inadequate
12
27
40
30
8
24
41
11
25
26
9
10
Not
stated
8
19
51
The standard of teaching in the
subjects I teach is being
negatively affected for both
special needs and other
students
Disagree
strongly
23
64
I need in service on specialist
skills in this area
The support available in my
school/college for students with
special needs is currently not
adequate
Disagree
slightly
Neither
6
5
11
17
3
6
Mean
score
1 0(6)
4.56
(6)
4.52
(7)
4.26
0
1
(9)
9
(6)
11
(5)
4.01
3.81
3.48
49
Extent of opinion on special needs:
I need more preparation time to effectively plan and work with special
needs students
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
%
Agree strongly
School/College
C&C
%
VEC
DEIS Status
Yes
%
%
No
%
Special Needs Taught
Yes
%
42
48
63
60
63
69
No
%
71
27
Agree slightly
Neither
Disagree slightly
Disagree strongly
Not stated
Mean
36
20
23
23
17
21
9
8
1 0
6
4.56
4
1
6
4.43
7
6
0
4.59
7
2
5
4.62
9
0 0
6
4.40
6
3
0
21
8
0 1 0
4.61
4.38
50
Extent of opinion on special needs:
The support available in my school/college for students with special needs
is currently not adequate
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
%
Agree strongly
30
School/College
C&C
%
32
VEC
DEIS Status
Yes
%
%
30
30
26
No
Yes
%
%
27
29
28
23
27
11
10
10
10
20
Disagree slightly
17
9
10
11
18
16
%
33
12
Neither
No
22
25
14
Agree slightly
Special Needs Taught
17
17
20
Disagree strongly
Not stated
Mean
11
5
3.48
16
5
3.27
10
10
5
5
3.53
3.53
15
5
3.33
18
0
9
3.55
3.28
51
Extent of opinion on special needs:
The concept of integration in this area is the correct approach, but the
current resources are inadequate
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
%
Agree strongly
40
Agree slightly
25
Neither
Disagree slightly
9
11
Disagree strongly
9
Not stated
6
Mean
3.81
School/College
C&C
%
46
19
9
13
9
4
3.82
VEC
%
DEIS Status
Yes
%
39
38
26
25
9
10
Special Needs Taught
Yes
%
42
40
24
27
12
11
7
7
14
11
8
12
42
19
6
3.93
9
21
6
3.71
No
%
3
6
7
9
3.81
No
%
9
1
3.76
3.99
52
Extent of opinion on special needs:
I need in-service on specialist skills in this area
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
%
Agree strongly
51
School/College
C&C
%
VEC
%
50
DEIS Status
Yes
%
No
%
Yes
%
No
%
43
47
57
58
Special Needs Taught
54
16
Agree slightly
24
24
26
23
Neither
Disagree slightly
Disagree strongly
Not stated
Mean
13
12
15
6
6
1
7
4.26
6
3
4
4.31
7
19
6
1
7
4.25
4.21
13
3
8
4.29
9
2
6
7
6
0
7
26
23
5
1 1
4.29
4.15
53
Extent of opinion on special needs:
Additional equipment & materials are required in this area
Base: All VEC & C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
%
School/College
C&C
%
VEC
%
DEIS Status
Yes
%
No
%
Special Needs Taught
Yes
%
No
%
50
Agree strongly
64
64
64
64
61
69
21
Agree slightly
Neither
Disagree slightly
Disagree strongly
Not stated
Mean
19
8
3
0
6
4.52
23
5
3
1
4
4.51
18
20
18
18
8
4
0
6
4.52
4
5
1
8
8
2 0
6
4.54
6
0
6
4.42
9
20
30 0
4.54
4.43
54
Extent of opinion on special needs:
The standard of teaching in the subjects I teach is being negatively affected
for both special needs and other students
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
%
School/College
C&C
%
VEC
%
DEIS Status
Yes
%
Agree strongly
No
%
Special Needs Taught
Yes
%
No
%
28
34
41
41
41
44
46
18
Agree slightly
28
26
27
27
Neither
10
27
7
30
8
16
Disagree slightly
11
13
5
Disagree strongly
Not stated
Mean
7
6
9
4.01
7
5
3.91
11
9
4
4
6
6
8
10
10
9
4.03
4.11
6
3.80
12
28
4
6
4.09
2
3.73
55
Special Needs Students : Qualitative Comments

Respondents tended to speak here of the provision of tangible facilities for students
with special needs (e.g. examination facilities; the provision of laptops; number of
students and lack of support) rather than the adoption of a particular philosophy or
set of policies. The latter was more for Further Education and Third Level teachers
than VEC/C&C.

It is clear that teachers include the full range of physical and mental health
disabilities within the definition of special needs (e.g. autism, hypertension, ADD,
travellers and to some extent students from minority ethnic backgrounds, etc), with
none of the respondents we spoke to aware of the existence of a Disability Officer at
the Institutions.

It was mentioned however that a Disability/Social needs officer has been appointed
by the VEC over 6-7 centres, but that “it can take months to set up something”
through this function.

VEC/C&C respondents mentioned that this was an area where their workload had
increased. This did depend on the level and amount of special needs students in the
school. At an overall level, most teachers felt that special needs students demanded
more attention.
56
Special Needs Students : Qualitative Comments

Some of the workload issues highlighted in this area included:
 The mix of abilities in the classes, and the need to give constant attention to
these students, with some teachers adamant that they could not even ‘turn their
backs on them’.
 Some teachers openly admitted that it was difficult to control these students.
The increasing class sizes appear to compound the latter.
 That they can react sensitively (sometimes with aggression) to being taught.
 Constant support required from the teacher, which can hider other students.
 Work sheets need to be adjusted for these students.
 Homework can have to be tailored for them.
 Constant check of work needs to be undertaken.
 Often if they fall further behind they can become even more disruptive.
 Supports only exist for some subjects. In addition, the general feeling was that
these were not sufficient for the numbers of students being mainstreamed.
 Policy on special needs required.
 At an overall level, more preparation time was felt to be required for classes
with special needs students.
57
Special Needs Students : Qualitative Comments

General feeling existed that their was an uneven distribution of special needs
students in the public sector, with Community schools having a disproportionate
share. Also some felt that certain schools get a reputation for having special needs
students, which limits their appeal to parents of other students.

Resources in this area were questioned by those teachers heavily involved with these
type of students. Those schools with less of these type of students were relatively
less concerned.
58
Section Six:
Information Communication
Technology
59
Internet access levels
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
DAILY ACCESS IN THE CLASSROOM
TO ASSIST TEACHING
OVERALL SCHOOL/COLLEGE ACCESS
%
%
Broadband (either
fixed line, WI-FI,
wireless etc)
96
Dial up
2
Other (specify)
1
No internet access
at all
1
Not stated
1
60
1
4
33
2
60
Daily access to other technology in classrooms to assist
teaching
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
Not stated
Type of Technology
2
No access to
other
technology
Base: All with daily access
42
55
Yes, have
daily access
(55%)
Projector
66%
Laptop/PC
44%
Video/DVD
23%
TV
18%
CD/tape recorder
13%
Interactive white board/
Smart board
12%
Note: answer less than 10% not shown on chart
61
Extent that using technology to assist teaching increases
teacher workload preparation time
Base: All VEC and C&C Teachers: 291
TOTAL
%
School/College
C&C
Agree strongly 59
VEC
Region
*Dublin Outside
60
U35* 35-44* 45-54
School Size
55+*
1-450
46
47
51
Age
62
48
63
62
68
65
25
26
Agree slightly 24
Neither
Disagree slightly
Disagree strongly
Not stated
Mean
4
3
7
2
4.37
7
3
31
4
3
3
2
3
4.12 4.43
4.06
* Note small base size
9
26
8
6
2
17
23
13
8
9
29
40
23
4.45
5
2
4
4
4.27
4502000
8
0
3 0
12
10
10
7
0
4
5
2
3
4.44 4.38 4.43
21
11
7
4
1
2
5
3
5
4.45 4.21
62
Comments on IT: Qualitative Phase

The level of IT access varies across schools and colleges. Thus consistency is not being
delivered.

While an acknowledgment exists across all teachers that IT development is essential in
schools and amongst teachers, there are a number of challenges.
 IT training appears to be quite ad-hoc in nature, with some teachers having to train
themselves in their spare time. Thus students will receive an inconsistent end
result. This serves to undermine teacher confidence in their skill set, especially
amongst older teachers.
 Often a teacher is assigned or takes it upon him/herself to look after the servicing
and buying of equipment or contracting a resource to undertake the latter. In some
cases no funding is available for IT service contracts.
 Ineffective resource level (equipment) also in turn effects the consistency of
teaching across schools.
63
Comments on IT: Qualitative Phase
 In some instances teacher workloads can increase as they come to grips with new
technology.
 In addition access to the web has increased student expectations in terms of
teaching style and the swiftness/newness of information. The latter in turn can
increase teacher workloads.
“You constantly have to put on a show – they are used to videos, etc” (VEC
teacher)
•
However many benefits of IT were also highlighted:
 Saves teaching time (saving notes, automatic filing, instant information access on
the web)
 Enables engagement, especially in current climate of disruptive students, low
attention spans, etc.
 Helps improve pupil performance
 Can help teacher workloads (better management, updating and storage of work,
etc). However, IT training in specific workload advantages of IT is required.
64